IMC Club President: GA Sickness Lies Much Deeper Than We Care To Admit

Jaybird180

Jaybird180

Final Approach
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
9,037
Location
Near DC
Display Name
Display name:
Jaybird180
I agree with the problem the author identified. I have no value to add regarding his proposed solution.




Fri, 27 May '11
Radek Wyrzykowski Reflects On The Pilot Training Reform Symposium In Atlanta, GA

Success can be measured in many different ways. When it comes to the recent and very timely Pilot Training Reform Symposium, I confess to having mixed feelings about what was achieved. I do need to start with a sincere thank you to the organizers of this event and especially SAFE's Chair Doug Stewart. By any measure, making that event happen was an impressive accomplishment and a giant step in the right direction - undeniable success. It initiated a discussion that was long overdue. Statistics from the recent industry study showing rapidly dropping number of new pilots and poor quality of education are definite causes for a concern. They call for a full blown alarm and "declaration of an emergency". The question however is - did the meeting accomplish what was needed?

Some people overwhelmed by the euphoria of the right direction and a success of the event in itself may consider what I am about to say some sort of an aviation heresy. But any progress and productive outcomes in history have always been characterized by vigorous debate. One could say that first - the specific problem has to be identified and then we can look for a solution. But what really is the problem? There is no argument that many possible causes for the problems in GA training were clearly identified at the Symposium. But in my opinion the core of the General Aviation sickness lies much deeper than we were willing to admit. The problem is that our system of developing young professional pilots forces them to do something many of them aren't interested in doing - being instructors. To accomplish their goals they have to suffer until their "time building sentence is over". This has resulted in a large group of instructors who simply don't teach well but who, through no fault of their own, were put in that position by a flawed system. No release of a free Syllabus will make flight instructors use it. No FAA Advisory Circular is going to create professionalism among them, especially those that have no desire to be aviation educators. As long as the "System" requires young pilots to build hours by becoming CFIs there are distinct steps we can take to make that system more effective. No one can or should change a young person's desires and dreams. But we can shape their behavior and attitudes through better supervision, coaching and mentoring.

Short term fixes may relieve us of a short term symptoms. Eliminate a headache, if you will, without the cure of the sickness itself. In other words only a long term solution that is based on an assessment of the big picture makes any sense. It is not going to yield any immediate results but the real fix lays in the results that may show up in five or even ten years count.

There is only one way that this objective can be accomplished. We need to institutionalize the role of Career Instructor. In the words of FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt at the Pilot Training Reform Symposium: "Education helps develop professionalism … we can make rules to require certain professional behavior, but professionalism is a lot more than rule-driven behaviors. It's a mindset.… It's an attitude that drives you to do the right thing - every time, all the time (…)"

No reeducation is going to create permanent results. The creation of the group of Career instructors that will be available for years to come is our only salvation. So how do we create this group?

I propose the creation of a National Flight Instructor Academy. The Academy would be created by a council of the industry and aviation education leaders and composed of approved independently participating flight instructors and aviation schools across the nation. Instructors and schools would become Academy members by adopting a training syllabus developed by that council and set to the highest training standards. The Academy would focus on producing true aviation educators.

I would like to invite to this task all aviation organizations especially: Aircraft Owners and Pilot Association, Society of Aviation and Flight Educators, National Association of Flight Instructors, Experimental Aircraft Association, Women in Aviation and all aviation industry leaders.

Our long term future is in our own hands and does not require any regulatory change. It is up to us to guide, mentor and demand the higher standard. If you are willing to participate please contact me.
Click to expand...
 
Maybe I'm slow because of this @#($*&# headcold, but what is the purpose of the "career instructor"?

An instructor regarding pilot careers?

full-time instructors? if so, what about the instructor that does it because he loves to teach a few people?

I'm confused.
 
Bob Noel said:
Maybe I'm slow because of this @#($*&# headcold, but what is the purpose of the "career instructor"?

An instructor regarding pilot careers?

full-time instructors? if so, what about the instructor that does it because he loves to teach a few people?

I'm confused.
Click to expand...

I think that's what he meant by career instructor.
 
Do I understand it right that the proposed solution is to create guild cum union of "career" CFIs, which presumably get to enjoy a monopoly right to train studends and time-builders get frozen out? Frankly I am not convinced that the lawer carteil, enforced by bar, delivers better service to its clients -- if that is his model. Sure it works great to transfer wealth to lawers, and its equivalent is going to make a career of "career" CFI that more lucrative and attractive, but is it going to help GA?
 
I agree that folks who are teaching because they have to, and really don't want to, don't do much for the health of GA. But I have known LOTS of youngsters who put forth a good attitude, and gave good service, all while waiting for the next step up the ladder. (and you know what - they got hired first) I can't make up my mind if this "solution" is just another way of saying "I can't make a good living as a full time CFI".

When times are booming, folks DO get hired without being CFIs (or they did before an ATP was required). With the ATP being required for 121 positions, folks who get their commercials have a long road ahead, even in booming times.
 
i got my training from a time builder. i don't think the people who preach about the evils of time builder CFI's realize how GA would absolutely screech to a halt if all the time builders quit instructing tomorrow. thousands of students would be left in the dark. all of the old geezer airport bum CFI's could be instructing 8 hrs a day year round and not be able to keep up with the demand.
 
I suspect the difficulties facing GA lie far deeper than Mr. Wyrzykowski realizes or cares to admit.
 
tonycondon said:
i got my training from a time builder. i don't think the people who preach about the evils of time builder CFI's realize how GA would absolutely screech to a halt if all the time builders quit instructing tomorrow. thousands of students would be left in the dark. all of the old geezer airport bum CFI's could be instructing 8 hrs a day year round and not be able to keep up with the demand.
Click to expand...


Exactly right.

:yes:
 
"Statistics from the recent industry study showing rapidly dropping number of new pilots and poor quality of education are definite causes for a concern. They call for a full blown alarm and "declaration of an emergency". The question however is - did the meeting accomplish what was needed?"

It seems to me, the author and his cronies have their heads buried in the sand. The "rapidly dropping number of new pilots" has little or nothing to do with the trials and tribulations of having to spend time instructing to build hours, nor the quality of their imparted knowledge to their students.

I have recommended taking flying lessons to probably close to a hundred or more of my customers over the years, and never, not once, did they attribute not wanting to fly with the hassles of having to be a CFI in order to build hours.

The answer was, and is, always the same. "I can not afford to learn to fly", "I don't have the time", "I'm uncomfortable in small airplanes", and finally, just a plain "No thanks, it's not for me."

The two primary arguments are the cost and the time that must be devoted to learning to fly.

So no, the meeting did not accomplish what is needed to bring more people into aviation. I'll bet it was a good meeting though, probably had nice take out or something.

John
 
John Baker;718708 The answer was said:
And particularly in today's economy - where one must work harder and be on call all the time coupled with less disposable income - the time and cost equation gets worse. Costly regulatory requirements don't make it easier. And we won't even talk about taxes aimed at "rich" folks and "rich pilots".
Click to expand...
 
tonycondon said:
i got my training from a time builder. i don't think the people who preach about the evils of time builder CFI's realize how GA would absolutely screech to a halt if all the time builders quit instructing tomorrow. thousands of students would be left in the dark. all of the old geezer airport bum CFI's could be instructing 8 hrs a day year round and not be able to keep up with the demand.
Click to expand...

Sure, getting rid of all the time building instructors wouldn't work. However, the problem isn't time builders in general. You can be building time and still be a good instructor. But the time builders who either aren't good at teaching and/or don't care enough to put forth the effort are the ones that shouldn't be instructing. Ideally there'd be an alternate way for them to build hours. Then those without an interest in teaching could opt out of doing it and you'd get rid of the CFIs who don't really care about teaching.

I don't know what percentage of CFIs fall into the bad instructor category. But if the group is large enough that getting rid of them would create a massive instructor shortage, that's a huge problem with the system that needs to be addressed.
 
I don't think we should send him to the guillotine just yet. The impression I got from his statements was his proposition was aimed more toward the folks who WANT to instruct to improve syllibi and professional instruction techniques; a "train the trainer" course. His proposition also hints at some sort of adjustment to time requirements for the sake of there being BETTER instructors instead of MANY. Personnally I'm on the fence about hours requirements, but nobody willing to put forth the effort, time, and money to learn to fly wants to do so at the whim of some jerk who's main concern is his own logbook. A proposition that emphasizes quality before quantity makes a lot of sense, and is a step in a good direction, but, as some of you have said, there is certainly more to consider.
 
How about tying student success to instructors to gauge quality? If a PVT student get INS training and he isn't cutting the mustard, you can question the CFI and DPE
 
tonycondon said:
i got my training from a time builder. i don't think the people who preach about the evils of time builder CFI's realize how GA would absolutely screech to a halt if all the time builders quit instructing tomorrow. thousands of students would be left in the dark. all of the old geezer airport bum CFI's could be instructing 8 hrs a day year round and not be able to keep up with the demand.
Click to expand...
I also got my training from a variety of time builders, one for each rating. I would have to say that the instructor I had for my private was the best, followed by the one for my instrument. They were good in different ways, though. My private instructor taught me a lot of different things that were way outside the scope of the PTS, although there wasn't a PTS back then. Consequently it took more hours than it might have otherwise. Some people might have thought that was "padding" but it was fine by me. I was more into the journey than the destination. My instrument instructor went strictly by a 141 syllabus even though I wasn't doing it 141 so the training was very systematic and done in minimum time. That was pretty efficient but it was a good thing that I had already had a lot of exposure to real life flying because I was an aerial camera operator by that time.

I would say the reason that there aren't more career instructors that it doesn't pay well enough. Consequently you end up with young people who will accept lower wages, and people who do it on the side or who are retired who do it more because they enjoy it than for the money. There are career instructors but almost all have some kind of specialty. There are also quite a few who work for sim schools. I don't know what can be done about this because the other problem is that flight training is too expensive for many people.
 
It does not matter what we do, we can all stand on our heads and gargle peanut butter, it will not make one iota of difference.

There is no way in heck that anyone in the aviation industry is going to agree to work for less in order to make GA more affordable.

There is no way in heck that the FAA and other interested government entities are going to reduce the number of regulations in order to make aviation less complicated.

The industry wants more money, the government wants more regulations, no ifs, ands, or buts about it.

GA will continue shrinking, jobs will continue disappearing, the FAA will have less to regulate.

There is no solution, GA is a dying horse, at least as far as the commoners are concerned.

It is heading for, or perhaps has already reached, the point of it being nothing more than a dalliance for the wealthy. Pretty much where it started.

John
 
And so?

John Baker said:
It does not matter what we do, we can all stand on our heads and gargle peanut butter, it will not make one iota of difference.

There is no way in heck that anyone in the aviation industry is going to agree to work for less in order to make GA more affordable.

There is no way in heck that the FAA and other interested government entities are going to reduce the number of regulations in order to make aviation less complicated.

The industry wants more money, the government wants more regulations, no ifs, ands, or buts about it.

GA will continue shrinking, jobs will continue disappearing, the FAA will have less to regulate.

There is no solution, GA is a dying horse, at least as far as the commoners are concerned.

It is heading for, or perhaps has already reached, the point of it being nothing more than a dalliance for the wealthy. Pretty much where it started.

John
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
And so?
Click to expand...

And so, just suck it up, it's winding down. Meetings, speeches, hand wringing, whatever, is not going to change that. I'm not saying it's over for good. but it is over for most.

The only things that could change that is:

* If entry level new airplanes were sold more in the $50,000.00 rather than the $100,000.00 to $200,000.00 range. That is an impossibility, especially with the declining value of the dollar.

* If operating costs could be cut in half from todays prices, again, not gonna happen.

* If the cost and time involved in getting a pilots certificate were again, cut in half from what is required today, nope, that won't happen either.

Having meetings about how to save aviation accomplishes only one thing, a good reason to have a meeting.

Then there is another reality looming on the near horizon, pilot-less commercial aircraft.

Why should a young person invest the time, dollars, and effort into a career that may soon be replaced by technology?

We have an aging affordable aircraft fleet, most in the thirty year old range. They cost more to maintain, and will not be lasting too many more years. An overhauled engine can easily cost over twenty thousand dollars with the plane they are destined for not worth the expense. It's cheaper to junk an aging aircraft, and unafordable to buy a new one.

There are just too many reasons why GA is dying, most can not be addressed.

John
 
I guess I should add, after sleeping on it, as the number of pilots decline, so will the number of GA airports. Cities and towns are not going to pay to maintain an airport that only has a few active planes operating from it, and a like number of take offs and landings. An airport surrounded by long shuttered aviation support services and businesses.

As the number of aircraft owners and pilots decline, so will everything else related to aviation. Costs will have to continue rising simply because the customer base is declining,......... because costs are rising, like a dog chasing it's own tail.

Once a city plows up an airstrip, it never comes back. How many new GA airports have opened in the last ten or twenty years? I can think of only one, and that was just a recycled old military field, no new construction.

How many have closed?

The questions for pilot wannabees will not be how much, but where can I get the training? how far away from home is it? It is already reaching the point of; "If you have to ask the price, you can't afford it."

John
 
Last edited:
Was private flying just a long-running fad, maybe? Like golf? Or skiing? Some of the other sports have enjoyed popularity until another generation comes along.

I can't see costs being reduced unless manufacturers are relieved of much of the threat of lawsuits. But how is that accomplished without unscrupulous folks taking advantage of such freedom and marketing unsafe airplanes? More regulation? Too much already. Do we return to the late 1940s or the '50s where airplanes were really basic but also could kill you much more quickly if you got careless?

Maintenance? I don't know about the US but in Canada the light-aircraft mechanic typically makes less money than his licensed counterpart does fixing cars. His shop charges less than auto shops. Around here it's the recreational vehicle shops that get the most. Harley shops have legendary rates. Airplanes are cheap in comparison, yet owners resent paying anything more than chump change.

Dan
 
Dan Thomas said:
Maintenance? I don't know about the US but in Canada the light-aircraft mechanic typically makes less money than his licensed counterpart does fixing cars. His shop charges less than auto shops. Around here it's the recreational vehicle shops that get the most. Harley shops have legendary rates. Airplanes are cheap in comparison, yet owners resent paying anything more than chump change.
Click to expand...

Fortunately, most cars and motorcycles don't require dozens of hours of maintenance each year. I suppose if they did, there would be more pressure to have lower cost maintenance rates.
 
I wonder if it is possible for aircraft manufacturers to move their products mainly by leasing/renting them rather than outright sales, much like many higher end automobiles are doing.

Say you could get a $200,000.00 brand new aircraft for around five hundred dollars a month with as Little as five thousand dollars down.

If these same aircraft, after being surrendered back to the company in about five years, could be again leased out at around four hundred a month, perhaps that might light a match under a bunch of people.

Insurance issues would also have to be addressed. Insurance on a two hundred thousand dollar aircraft can run around three hundred or more per month, which can definitely be a deal breaker for many people.

The only trouble with such daydreaming is the reality that the dollar is declining in value, and we are entering into an inflation during a recession. Raw goods are skyrocketing, at least in my industry, probably in all industries. Discretionary income for many is non existent. Jobs are coming back, slowly, but not at the old wage levels, except in larger industries and government.

I know if I could own and operate my own brand new aircraft for around a thousand dollars a month, I would probably bite, or at least go and kick the tires if nothing else, that's a whole lot more than I would do now.

There is still money out there, its just that the aviation industry can not figure out how to harvest it.

John
 
I am in South Texas, and my 17 year old daughter is ready to learn to fly.

Amazingly, in a state that is chock-full of general aviation activity (relative to many states), we have been completely unable to find a CFI with a rental plane who is willing to fly to our airport and teach her to fly!

There is no FBO, and no CFIs, at KRAS, our home airport on Mustang Island. Nonetheless, we are less than ten minutes (by air) from several airports that supposedly have CFIs. You would think SOMEONE would be willing to fly over to the island airport on a schedule (for pay -- I'm not asking them to fly here for free) and teach our daughter to fly, but so far no joy.

It's sad -- by this age, her older brother had already flown into Oshkosh! In our home state of Iowa, a state with a tiny fraction of the population of Texas, we had CFIs at nearly every airport as recently as 2010, and no problem at all finding rental planes and someone to teach our son to fly.

Here, no luck. It's been VERY surprising to me, and disappointing to our daughter, but I suppose it's indicative of the rapid overall decline in GA.
 
Like everyone else I think there are a number of problems, easily identified but difficult to solve, that contribute to the decline of aviation for "common" folk.

Capitalism. It appears that aircraft manufacturers have decided it's better to sell 100 with $100,000 profit per plane, than to sell 10,000 at $1,000 profit per plane. I remember reading (AOPA Pilot?) several years ago just after the legislation decreasing the liability for aircraft companies. In an interview with an aircraft (Mooney?) representative, the question was asked if this would mean a reduction in aircraft prices. The answer was "No", they were going to use the increased funds for R&D. Perhaps my memory is flawed, but aircraft prices didn't seem to decline with passage of that legislation.

Liability. While I think that companies should be compelled to be responsible for their products, and should be held accountable for malicious decisions/actions by employees I don't think it should be a lottery system for folks to get rich. Certainly those harmed should get appropriate compensation for documented losses. Punitive damages, on the other hand, should be separate with none of the money going to the lawyers, or plaintiffs. I would suggest that this money should go into some kind of fund to help eliminate the problem from the fleet or otherwise improve the safety of aviation.

Scarcity and fragility of airports. It would seem to me that AOPA and others should be pushing for an "Interstate airport system" much like the interstate highway system. Would our automobile industry be what it is, without the interstate highway system? It's at least a half hour drive for me to get to any airport from my house, and as traffic lights and congestion increases, I don't think that will decrease. If the government would invest in simple, single runway self serve fuel airports strategically located in each city/township/county/whatever and essentially guarantee the longevity of that landing site possibly more people would fly, as they may end up with an airport closer to home, and an airport closer to any destination.

Probably the biggest reason though is that we're a much more fearful, and less tolerant nation than we were when aviation was thriving. I don't know how you convince people to be less fearful, especially with the news media, and government constantly bombarding us with all the reasons we have to BE scared. We used to be a nation that looked at someone else's prize (fancy car, plane, boat, pension, big house) and say "Ooohh, I need to work and get me one of those.", now we seem to look at those same prizes and say "Hey!! How'd he get that? He shouldn't have one of those."

/rant
 
Whatever you're smoking, I want some of it. It would be fun for an old fart like me to be completely delusional, even if I knew it would wear off as soon as I put down the pipe.

John Baker said:
I wonder if it is possible for aircraft manufacturers to move their products mainly by leasing/renting them rather than outright sales, much like many higher end automobiles are doing.

Say you could get a $200,000.00 brand new aircraft for around five hundred dollars a month with as Little as five thousand dollars down.

If these same aircraft, after being surrendered back to the company in about five years, could be again leased out at around four hundred a month, perhaps that might light a match under a bunch of people.

Insurance issues would also have to be addressed. Insurance on a two hundred thousand dollar aircraft can run around three hundred or more per month, which can definitely be a deal breaker for many people.

The only trouble with such daydreaming is the reality that the dollar is declining in value, and we are entering into an inflation during a recession. Raw goods are skyrocketing, at least in my industry, probably in all industries. Discretionary income for many is non existent. Jobs are coming back, slowly, but not at the old wage levels, except in larger industries and government.

I know if I could own and operate my own brand new aircraft for around a thousand dollars a month, I would probably bite, or at least go and kick the tires if nothing else, that's a whole lot more than I would do now.

There is still money out there, its just that the aviation industry can not figure out how to harvest it.

John
Click to expand...
 
Golf rounds/yr are down signficantly, with no recovery in sight. See last week's WSJ article. I may be a dinosaur in two activities.

Everskyward said:
Skiing and golf aren't popular any more? You could have fooled me.
Click to expand...
 
This is great, imo.

Nothing is worse thanlearning from a teacher who doesn't want to teach. And that goes for any field. Medicine, law, aviation, whatever.
 
wabower said:
Golf rounds/yr are down signficantly, with no recovery in sight. See last week's WSJ article. I may be a dinosaur in two activities.
Click to expand...
I never tried golf as it didn't look very interesting. I participated in skiing when I was young but it was one of those things that got to be too expensive and too much bother for the enjoyment. I switched to x-c skiing and snowshoeing for awhile but that went by the wayside when I moved from west of Denver to east of Denver and added an hour to my drive to the mountains. Yes I know that people come from all over the country to Colorado to ski, but I'm basically lazy.
 
steingar said:
I suspect the difficulties facing GA lie far deeper than Mr. Wyrzykowski realizes or cares to admit.
Click to expand...

Ding! Ding! Ding!

It's embarrassing to even have to say that. C'mon Mr Wyrzykowski, get a grip. Neither you, me, nor any other GA pilot became a pilot because there were "career CFIs" to train us. We did it because; a) we saw folks just like us doing it b) it looked like it would be FUN to do it and c) it looked like it was actually possible for us to do it.

Items a and b determine how many will WANT to play. But, it is item c that determines how many actually CAN play. It is the interconnected triad foundation of any sport or hobby.
 
Dart said:
Ding! Ding! Ding!

It's embarrassing to even have to say that. C'mon Mr Wyrzykowski, get a grip. Neither you, me, nor any other GA pilot became a pilot because there were "career CFIs" to train us. We did it because; a) we saw folks just like us doing it b) it looked like it would be FUN to do it and c) it looked like it was actually possible for us to do it.

Items a and b determine how many will WANT to play. But, it is item c that determines how many actually CAN play. It is the interconnected triad foundation of any sport or hobby.
Click to expand...


In my case, the seed was planted when I was 14. A friend of my father gave me a ride in an Arrow (BED-HYA-BED). Fast forward 14 years when the company's flying club ran a ground school...I had a job, I had the time, I had the opportunity, and I had the passion.
 
wabower said:
Whatever you're smoking, I want some of it. It would be fun for an old fart like me to be completely delusional, even if I knew it would wear off as soon as I put down the pipe.
Click to expand...

Believe it or not, even though I live in California, I don't smoke anything. I know my post was delusional, and even stated as much in it. Looking for solutions to the decline of GA is about as delusional a pastime as kicking back and smoking loco weed...........isn't it?

John
 
A good anecdote for this discussion. I wanted to be a pilot since I was a wee tyke. when asked what I wanted to do when I grew up, I invariably answered "Dictator". Once informed of the difficulties surrounding that career choice, I always answered "Pilot".

Of course, I found out early on that my eyesight would keep me out the cockpit (most airline pilots in those days came from the military, and to fly jets in the military you had to have good vision). I don't, so I was off to graduate school

When I became a professor, a friend was a pilot, and told me about the finances for aviation. I realized that I had enough ability and money, and bang! I learned to fly.

The only reason I didn't do it sooner was ignorance. Most people have never seen a small aircraft, and have no idea about anything save crashes. That is a far bigger problem than idiot CFIs. If folks actually encounter the CFI, they are well ahead of the game. The challenge is in bringing a larger proportion of the 99.99% of the rest.
 
Last edited:
Here is my anecdotal experience from yesterday. I was on an airline flight KDEN-KSAN-KSFO (one of the few times I didn't book a non-stop). The guy sitting next to me the whole time wanted to talk, which is a little unusual. It turns out he is a lawyer for a high tech Silicon Valley company who had been to a climbing (rock? mountain?) convention in Colorado. I'm guessing that he was in at least his mid-40s. Over the course of the conversation he asked me what I do. Sometimes I lie just because I don't want to get into it but this time I was honest about being a pilot. That produced a barrage of questions. I had an AOPA magazine that I showed him. Through the conversation I realized he was mostly only curious about my job. He told me that some of his friends fly small airplanes but that he had no desire to get in the air himself. So here is a guy who has money, is not that afraid of risk, since he's a climber, but to whom aviation has no appeal even though he knows about it.
 
steingar said:
A good anecdote for this discussion. I wanted to be a pilot since I was a wee tyke. when asked what I wanted to do when I grew up, I invariably answered "Dictator". Once informed of the difficulties surrounding that career choice, I always answered "Pilot".

Of course, I found out early on that my eyesight would keep me out the cockpit (most airline pilots in those days came from the military, and to fly jets in the military you had to have good vision. I don't, so I was off to graduate school

When I became a professor, a friend was a pilot, and told me about the finances for aviation. I realized that I had enough ability and money, and bang! I learned to fly.

The only reason I didn't do it sooner was ignorance. Most people have never seen a small aircraft, and have no idea about anything save crashes. That is a far bigger problem than idiot CFIs. If folks actually encounter the CFI, they are well ahead of the game. The challenge is in bringing a larger proportion of the 99.99% of the rest.
Click to expand...

I'd have to agree with your sentiment. When my mom tried offering me an alternative to military aviation I had no concept except for flying bus driver and wanted no part of commercial aviation. I was also unaware that I had the concept of airplane<>AIRPLANE. I should have taken mom's money to learn to fly when I was a teenager, but alas the point is moot now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top